Who does homosexuality hurt?
 

Please explain your answer.

I'll say what I always say on this and related topics...

Two people who consent to interact with each other on some level, sexually or otherwise, who are adults, should be allowed.

I'll go further...there is *NO* rational reason to prevent gay couples from marrying, because marriage is a contract, and gay people can enter into any other contract except that one.

The people participating: hurts them in that our general society still has a ways to go in regards to accepting gays. Depending on the area, being homosexual can be a rocky road of discrimination.

Children: young children tend to believe whatever you tell them and this is a dangerous power that is abused by those with agendas. I doubt it is a very common occurrence, more like just a possibility I guess but with people being people..., there is a chance some homosexual couples may encourage their child[ren] to become homosexual rather than letting the kid[s] find out for themselves. Of course this is just as applicable on the straight side, but this thread is not about straight folks.

No one: i rarely lose sleep worrying about Sheldon sneaking into my house and giving me surprise buttsecks.



If you only wanted me to choose one, my bad

I suppose it'd depend on how much lube you used....ask sheldon

I realized I left an important choice out:

Those who let it hurt them.

Damn.

LOL@Razz. You're my love!

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. It hurts the baby Jesus.

This is such a weird question. It's a given that homosexuality hurts no one. Homosexuality is what it is, and what is meant to be.

The problem is, the horrible attitudes toward homosexuality. They hurt everyone.

だれも (no one): simply put, there's nothing inherently bad about homosexuality. The only harm that comes to anyone comes from people, under the influence of society. *is obtuse at early hours*

Well, it confuses hunky firemen when professed lesbians start coming on to them.

All I can answer is, "Not me".

:lol2:

Couldn't have said it better.

I'll answer #1 (elspode, ever my model of tolerance and grace); #7 (footfootfoot has a point); and, #10 (Zen. That would be very confusing)

It hurts the one dude's anus, but he likes it.

Funny how when Coke want people to drink something brown and fizzy made of vegetable extracts and sugar which has no nutritional value and rots people's teeth, they spend millions on advertising.

But when teh gays wants to recruit more members (heh heh heh) all they have to do is tell school children that some men like it up the poop shoot.

'cause crack is more addictive than coke.

If you are dating me at the time but you secretly like cock, me then. :)

I'm sorry - I read the question as Why does homosexuality hurt :blush: ...

That isn't the homosexuality that hurt you....it was dishonesty that hurt you.



this reminds me of a joke:

what's the difference between anal sex and a microwave?

hit ctrl+a for the answer
a microwave won't brown your meat.

I know there are some traditional couples who feel their marriage is threatened by teh gheys...but that's just stupidity.

Love is love. Commitment is commitment.

No that's wrong. Because it is dishonesty, and a penis that I will never have. ;)

I'm a product of my environment and upbringing, I suppose.

Rationally, I believe that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever as long as no permanent harm is done.

The truth is, though, that female homosexuality doesn't bother me. But male homosexuality is ewwww.

I don't know why.

Isn't it more that they think their vows to each other will be cheapened if 'just anyone' is allowed to go ahead and get married? That's the feeling I get when I read those sorts of discussions.

It's probably the whole bottom/poo thing.

You should try anal sex some time. Maybe you'd change your mind. ;)

How to phrase this...

I can fairly confidently say that that's not it.

Oh so you've already tried it or no the thought of the bottom/poo thing doesn't turn you off?

Let's bring this thread, for once, back to reality...

If two dudes who are happily buggering one another, or two ladies happily slurping the juices, decide that they wish to be legally and morally entangled for all of time...

Why, how, where, when...can it damage *anything*?

People who love each other should be allowed to enter a legally binding agreement based on nothing more than their love, and it shouldn't matter whether they have tab A going into slot B or whatever. Any heterosexual couple is allowed, nay, *encouraged* to do this whenever they please. Why should a couple who has two tab A's or slots B be different?

I dare anyone to provide a serious argument as to why this premise is wrong on any level.

Because God said so!

No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

ETA: You can't refuse to acknowledge one side of an argument just because you don't agree with it imo. It is a part of the argument/social discourse and therefore cannot simply be set aside as it forms a part of how society views the issue.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.

Not in my theology, it doesn't. And I'm real mod.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.[/quote]

In the Constitution of the United States, there's a separation of Church and State (work with me, okay, Radar? TW?).

Marriage, as seen by law, is a *contract*. Its a business deal, pure and simple. Otherwise, when the marriage fails, there'd be no need to divide the property and income into the future and such.

My point is this: Marriage is a contract that is only currently available to heterosexuals. Why? Don't just tell me " 'cause that's how it is".

Tell me *why*...seriously, why?

And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.

ok then. The reason is that too many people sit around complaining about it and not enough actually get up off their butts and do something about it, such as protesting, raising community awareness etc.

On the other hand, 20 or even 15 years ago, gay people had it a lot tougher than they do now. At least they have a reasonable chance of walking down the road without having the crap bashed out of them these days.

Change in this regard - that is changing the social structure of the environment - happens slowly, but at a much faster rate than ever before. Maybe it's still not fast enough, but to use your words, 'that's how it is'.

Personally I don't care if gay people get married or live in sin or live their life however they choose, just as I feel about straight people, or people who aren't sure about their sexuality, or people who choose to have open marriages even. I don't have any reason to stop anyone from living their personal relationships how the choose to, but some people do, and to most of those that do, it comes down to religious beliefs or social beliefs.

Saying that God has nothing to do with the discussion is like saying you don't like how rain makes puddles, so let's only talk about the puddles that appear because of other things.

What about civil unions?

That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route, or of course quick weddings before the man went off to war.

Even in many civil ceremonies God still gets a mention.

I still don't see an argument that addresses the ultimate basic notion of marriage as a simple contract.

God in, God out. Marriage before a JOP or a Priest.

*WHY* can't gay people get legally married? Why can straight people do so without question?

"That's just the way it is" does *not* answer my query. I want to hear opinions as to why it is illegal for gay people to enter into the legally binding state of matrimony.

Because it's not socially acceptable. That's about the only reason.

When it is socially acceptable to be gay, then I'm sure marriage will be legal.

There is no other reason.

And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.

Perhaps it depends on the accepted definition of marriage?

That's true HM. Of course it's also true that often times the family is driven by their religion when they make these sorts of 'judgements'.

I think Els has been pretty clear on how he defines marriage. It's a simple contract.

How do you define marriage Classic?

For the sake of the argument here is one definition:

My point is not to disagree with Els, but to say that the argument is more based upon ones accepted definition than anything else.

...and my point is simply that all current "socially acceptable" definitions of marriage are wrong.

Race, religion, national origin...none of these things are any longer acceptable reasons to deny the right of marriage between two people in any country which we would call, by almost any set of defintions, "civilized".

Yet it is permissable, nay, *legal*, to deny the right of marriage to two individuals strictly based upon the fact that they happen to be of the same sex.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me an absolute, logical, moral reason why this should be so. A moral reason not based on any one theology or mythology, but a truly, simply, plainly *moral* reason.

Why just 2?

Oh, well if the definition isn't to your liking then write your congressman.

Have I waved the great prophet Roy Zimmerman at you all lately?

"It's the Lord's holy word
said my second wife to my third..."

nope - please do....

Any group of people should be able to enter into a legal contract without exception regardless of sexual orientation.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jinx.

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that I'm 'legally' married doesn't mean anywhere near as much to me as the fact that I feel spiritually bound to my husband. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything to me what the law thinks. This is my issue with the whole legal contract argument. There's more involved in getting married than a simple signing of names. If that's all it was, then there'd be no talking or exchanging of vows. People would just send away for the forms, sign them and then send them back.

Still, if we are thinking of civil unions, they come with various pension/insurance benefits. Polygamous unions could become tricky in that respect.
Suppose eight people get "married". Do they all get carer's leave when one is sick? How many mother-in-law's funerals can they attend? How would this affect welfare and pensions?
It would even be possible, by adding new spouses as old ones die, to keep a poly-marriage going indefinitely.
Not that these things should preclude poly-marriage, but I think they're interesting questions.

I can't imagine having another wife in this house, but an extra husband would come in handy sometimes. :)

Read any RAH recently?

Because then you are a Mormon. Marriage is just between a man and a woman, and another woman, and another.....

None of that was in the title of the thread.

err, who? (I guess that means "no".)

Robert Anson Heinlein - One of the preeminent science fiction authors of the golden era.

In particular, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress discusses line-marriage.

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.